Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Park Factor: how reliable?
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Two teams, one park, different park factors.
So how come the park factor is different for one team almost every season? Because baseball is played in non-uniform playing areas a park factor is needed to try to equate stats...
In St. Louis when the teams had the same BPF three consecutive years it was different each year: 106, 107, 104. Same thing in Philadelphia for two consecutive years: 97, 98...
Park factor is used to compute OPS+ and ERA+, two bedrocks of current conventional wisdom. I realize that parks change from one season to the next, even the configuration of the same park changes, and that there are different parks in the two leagues but this indicates how little we know about this important stat ...
_______________________________________
Click link to view data and interactive graphs.
AL:
BPF max: 2011 Rangers Ballpark in Arlington 117
BPF min: 1964 Dodger Stadium (Angels) 90
StDev max: 2011 6.97
StDev min: 1913 2.295
NL:
BPF max: 1995 Coors Field (Rockies) 129
BPF min: 2008 Petco Park (Padres) 88
StDev max: 1995 8.95
StDev min: 1952 1.7
Stimulating, provocative, sometimes whimsical new concepts that challenge traditional baseball orthodoxy. Note: Anonymous comments will not be published. Copyright Kenneth Matinale
About Me
Labels
"500" home runs
(23)
1961 HR race
(67)
3 Home Run games
(12)
All City: New York
(37)
Attendance
(16)
Conduct
(381)
Constitutional
(39)
DiMaggio
(50)
Hall of Fame
(116)
Home Run rates
(60)
Home Runs
(447)
Home Runs career
(9)
Home/Road
(95)
Jackie Robinson
(26)
Jeter
(53)
Mariano Rivera
(16)
Mickey Mantle
(247)
Negro Leagues
(15)
Philosophy
(337)
Righty/Lefty
(109)
Rules
(302)
Ruth
(190)
Safety
(33)
Salary Cap
(22)
Signs
(50)
Stats
(774)
Strike Zone
(18)
Tactics
(88)
WAR
(29)
Williams
(47)
World Series
(62)
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Those humongous TV deals: is that money guaranteed or what?
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Collapse is coming.
I don't care how many decades these (TV) deals seem to entail, if the ratings plummet, which I think they will, the advertising money will dry up and the inevitable downward spiral will blow down the house of cards...
Even a Super League of eight to ten teams may not survive this madness. Who the heck cares that much about baseball any more? I love baseball but not this slow, boring mess that the Major Baseball League (MBL) has devolved into. Here is the future in less than a decade:
1. Americans are not playing baseball.
2. Americans are not attending baseball games.
3. Americans are not watching baseball.
________________________________
TV SPORTS
Sweet TV Deal Will Taste Bitter to Fans
By RICHARD SANDOMIR
Time Warner Cable announced what has been expected for a while, saying that in a deal worth up to $8 billion over 25 years, it will carry Dodgers games on the newfangled SportsNet LA starting in 2014 ...
While all this money being exchanged might be great for the teams, it’s lousy for the fans. With one team, SportsNet LA alone could add up to $5 a month to the costs of cable, satellite and telephone companies. They in turn pass much of those costs onto subscribers... Time Warner (will be) ... extracting steep subscriber fees from AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Charter, DirecTV and Dish Network.
But only a portion of that staggering sum, about $84 million a year, which will rise at 4 percent annually, is designated as the team’s market-value rights fee and taxable at a 34 percent rate for Major League Baseball’s revenue-sharing pool...
Once they get a hold of the contract, baseball officials will see if what is slated to be untaxed should really be taxed and available to share. If the money is guaranteed, and not at risk, it should be taxed.
___________________________________________
"If the money is guaranteed"? Say what? IF? And this is just a legal if, not an economic if, as in the types of default in recent years in industries such as finance, auto, real estate. What, sports, and the Major Baseball League (MBL) specifically, are immune? If people stop watching twenty minutes of entertainment stretched out to four boring hours, how long do you think it will take the sponsors to realize that TV rating have decreased and that triggers:
1. reduction in the money paid for ads according to contract
2. renegotiation
3. default.
Then what? MBL teams cannot possibly pay those absurd amounts committed and "guaranteed" to individual players. Many fans will welcome this as they do not like seeing other workers being paid so much more than they.
Americans will simply but steadily drift away from baseball, which will fade into history.
Collapse is coming.
Even a Super League of eight to ten teams may not survive this madness. Who the heck cares that much about baseball any more? I love baseball but not this slow, boring mess that the Major Baseball League (MBL) has devolved into. Here is the future in less than a decade:
1. Americans are not playing baseball.
2. Americans are not attending baseball games.
3. Americans are not watching baseball.
________________________________
TV SPORTS
Sweet TV Deal Will Taste Bitter to Fans
By RICHARD SANDOMIR
Time Warner Cable announced what has been expected for a while, saying that in a deal worth up to $8 billion over 25 years, it will carry Dodgers games on the newfangled SportsNet LA starting in 2014 ...
While all this money being exchanged might be great for the teams, it’s lousy for the fans. With one team, SportsNet LA alone could add up to $5 a month to the costs of cable, satellite and telephone companies. They in turn pass much of those costs onto subscribers... Time Warner (will be) ... extracting steep subscriber fees from AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Charter, DirecTV and Dish Network.
But only a portion of that staggering sum, about $84 million a year, which will rise at 4 percent annually, is designated as the team’s market-value rights fee and taxable at a 34 percent rate for Major League Baseball’s revenue-sharing pool...
Once they get a hold of the contract, baseball officials will see if what is slated to be untaxed should really be taxed and available to share. If the money is guaranteed, and not at risk, it should be taxed.
___________________________________________
"If the money is guaranteed"? Say what? IF? And this is just a legal if, not an economic if, as in the types of default in recent years in industries such as finance, auto, real estate. What, sports, and the Major Baseball League (MBL) specifically, are immune? If people stop watching twenty minutes of entertainment stretched out to four boring hours, how long do you think it will take the sponsors to realize that TV rating have decreased and that triggers:
1. reduction in the money paid for ads according to contract
2. renegotiation
3. default.
Then what? MBL teams cannot possibly pay those absurd amounts committed and "guaranteed" to individual players. Many fans will welcome this as they do not like seeing other workers being paid so much more than they.
Americans will simply but steadily drift away from baseball, which will fade into history.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Pitchers and catchers report in a month: say it ain't so.
Maybe if they just don't show we can play without them. Tee ball sounds good. That gets the game back to basics: hitting, fielding, base running. Not jerking around while 90 percent of what passes for action is two guys playing catch. There were more strike outs per nine innings in 2012 than ever. And plenty of walks. And all the slow down rituals by batters and pitchers that SUCK the life out of a once great game.
Who wants strike outs and walks? Who? Put the ball in play! Just eliminate the pitchers as we know them and the catchers completely. Big improvement. You know the expression: Joe Blow is a thrower, not a pitcher? We need throwers, players who can simply put the ball in the strike zone without all the Bugs Bunny pitchers. Just throw strikes!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Pitchers and Catchers: Humbug!
Am I the only one who is sick of hearing the lame phrase "pitchers and catchers" thrown around this time of year as some sort of identifier: hey, we know baseball? We, the morons who haven't had an original thought in decades.
________________________________
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Eliminate the catcher, outlaw the collisions or properly equip the fielders.
Baseball catcher is easily the stupidest position among the three American team sports. Only football center comes close. Catcher could be eliminated if MLB had any imagination...
Place something behind the plate that would be a target for the pitcher ... The metaphor for a catcher is backstop. A backstop is a wall. Who wants to play wall? It's easily the most ridiculous position in team sports. Most baseball players want no part of catching. Put that player in fair territory where he can do some good. How about next to the pitcher where he could field balls hit up the middle and still be close enough to cover home plate? I have already advocated that base runners may not take a lead until the ball is hit... And put a damn screen in front of the pitcher before one gets killed with those blasts up the middle.
________________________________
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Start the count at 3-2. And limit the batter to three swings maximum.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Radical Baseball basics
1. start count at 3-2; batter gets max three swings to put ball in play then is out.
2. runners may not take lead
3. replace catcher with a round physical target 20 inches in diameter, like a bull's eye; if ball hits target it's a strike; batter may adjust height between knees and shoulder; catcher may play anywhere in fair territory; plate ump moves behind pitcher ...
7. eliminate mound; pitcher must release ball no closer than rubber
8. extend foul territory 45 feet from home plate into what is now fair territory
Who wants strike outs and walks? Who? Put the ball in play! Just eliminate the pitchers as we know them and the catchers completely. Big improvement. You know the expression: Joe Blow is a thrower, not a pitcher? We need throwers, players who can simply put the ball in the strike zone without all the Bugs Bunny pitchers. Just throw strikes!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Pitchers and Catchers: Humbug!
Am I the only one who is sick of hearing the lame phrase "pitchers and catchers" thrown around this time of year as some sort of identifier: hey, we know baseball? We, the morons who haven't had an original thought in decades.
________________________________
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Eliminate the catcher, outlaw the collisions or properly equip the fielders.
Baseball catcher is easily the stupidest position among the three American team sports. Only football center comes close. Catcher could be eliminated if MLB had any imagination...
Place something behind the plate that would be a target for the pitcher ... The metaphor for a catcher is backstop. A backstop is a wall. Who wants to play wall? It's easily the most ridiculous position in team sports. Most baseball players want no part of catching. Put that player in fair territory where he can do some good. How about next to the pitcher where he could field balls hit up the middle and still be close enough to cover home plate? I have already advocated that base runners may not take a lead until the ball is hit... And put a damn screen in front of the pitcher before one gets killed with those blasts up the middle.
________________________________
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Start the count at 3-2. And limit the batter to three swings maximum.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Radical Baseball basics
1. start count at 3-2; batter gets max three swings to put ball in play then is out.
2. runners may not take lead
3. replace catcher with a round physical target 20 inches in diameter, like a bull's eye; if ball hits target it's a strike; batter may adjust height between knees and shoulder; catcher may play anywhere in fair territory; plate ump moves behind pitcher ...
7. eliminate mound; pitcher must release ball no closer than rubber
8. extend foul territory 45 feet from home plate into what is now fair territory
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Two teams, one park, different park factors.
From 1903 through 1975 two teams (one AL, one NL) have shared the same ball park in a season 65 times. None since then. Only the two seasons (1974-1975) the Yankees and Mets shared Shea Stadium did the AL team use the designated hitter (DH).
In New York the Yankees and Giants shared the Polo Grounds 1913-1922.
In St. Louis Cardinals and Browns shared Sportsman's Park 1921-1953. Then the Browns morphed into beautiful birds, the Baltimore Orioles.
In Philadelphia Athletics and Phillies (Blue Jays some seasons) shared Shibe Park 1939-1954. In 1955 the Athletics moved to Kansas City. Shibe Park was renamed Connie Mack Stadium 1953-1976 after the Athletics owner.
In Los Angeles Dodgers and Angels shared Dodger Stadium 1962-1965.
So how come the park factor is different for one team almost every season? Because baseball is played in non-uniform playing areas a park factor is needed to try to equate stats. There are actually two park factors, one for batters (BPF), one for pitchers (PPF).
BBF is equal in only 11 of the 65 shared seasons:
In St. Louis when the teams had the same BPF three consecutive years it was different each year: 106, 107, 104. Same thing in Philadelphia for two consecutive years: 97, 98. Oddly the Yanks with the DH and Mets are one of the 11 seasons when the teams had the same BPF.
PPF same:
Two instances when both BPF and PPF were the same:
Park factor is used to compute OPS+ and ERA+, two bedrocks of current conventional wisdom. I realize that parks change from one season to the next, even the configuration of the same park changes, and that there are different parks in the two leagues but this indicates how little we know about this important stat other than the vague notion that it somehow mysteriously takes the different and non-uniform playing areas into account in order to enable us to compare Albert Pujols and Lou Gehrig.
We really should have a much better understanding of park factor. Wins Above Replacement (WAR). All that stuff.
In New York the Yankees and Giants shared the Polo Grounds 1913-1922.
In St. Louis Cardinals and Browns shared Sportsman's Park 1921-1953. Then the Browns morphed into beautiful birds, the Baltimore Orioles.
In Philadelphia Athletics and Phillies (Blue Jays some seasons) shared Shibe Park 1939-1954. In 1955 the Athletics moved to Kansas City. Shibe Park was renamed Connie Mack Stadium 1953-1976 after the Athletics owner.
In Los Angeles Dodgers and Angels shared Dodger Stadium 1962-1965.
So how come the park factor is different for one team almost every season? Because baseball is played in non-uniform playing areas a park factor is needed to try to equate stats. There are actually two park factors, one for batters (BPF), one for pitchers (PPF).
BBF is equal in only 11 of the 65 shared seasons:
yearID | park | TeamAL | TeamNL | BPFal |
---|---|---|---|---|
1921 | Polo Grounds IV | New York Yankees | New York Giants | 102 |
1922 | Polo Grounds IV | New York Yankees | New York Giants | 102 |
1928 | Sportsman's Park IV | St. Louis Browns | St. Louis Cardinals | 103 |
1933 | Sportsman's Park IV | St. Louis Browns | St. Louis Cardinals | 106 |
1934 | Sportsman's Park IV | St. Louis Browns | St. Louis Cardinals | 107 |
1935 | Sportsman's Park IV | St. Louis Browns | St. Louis Cardinals | 104 |
1949 | Shibe Park | Philadelphia Athletics | Philadelphia Phillies | 97 |
1950 | Shibe Park | Philadelphia Athletics | Philadelphia Phillies | 98 |
1950 | Sportsman's Park IV | St. Louis Browns | St. Louis Cardinals | 104 |
1954 | Connie Mack Stadium | Philadelphia Athletics | Philadelphia Phillies | 100 |
1974 | Shea Stadium | New York Yankees | New York Mets | 99 |
In St. Louis when the teams had the same BPF three consecutive years it was different each year: 106, 107, 104. Same thing in Philadelphia for two consecutive years: 97, 98. Oddly the Yanks with the DH and Mets are one of the 11 seasons when the teams had the same BPF.
PPF same:
yearID | park | TeamAL | TeamNL | PPFnl |
---|---|---|---|---|
1921 | Polo Grounds IV | New York Yankees | New York Giants | 98 |
1922 | Polo Grounds IV | New York Yankees | New York Giants | 98 |
1938 | Sportsman's Park IV | St. Louis Browns | St. Louis Cardinals | 104 |
1939 | Sportsman's Park IV | St. Louis Browns | St. Louis Cardinals | 105 |
1940 | Shibe Park | Philadelphia Athletics | Philadelphia Phillies | 101 |
1941 | Shibe Park | Philadelphia Athletics | Philadelphia Phillies | 101 |
1941 | Sportsman's Park IV | St. Louis Browns | St. Louis Cardinals | 104 |
1946 | Shibe Park | Philadelphia Athletics | Philadelphia Phillies | 100 |
Two instances when both BPF and PPF were the same:
yearID | park | TeamAL | TeamNL | BPFal | PPFnl |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1921 | Polo Grounds IV | New York Yankees | New York Giants | 102 | 98 |
1922 | Polo Grounds IV | New York Yankees | New York Giants | 102 | 98 |
Park factor is used to compute OPS+ and ERA+, two bedrocks of current conventional wisdom. I realize that parks change from one season to the next, even the configuration of the same park changes, and that there are different parks in the two leagues but this indicates how little we know about this important stat other than the vague notion that it somehow mysteriously takes the different and non-uniform playing areas into account in order to enable us to compare Albert Pujols and Lou Gehrig.
We really should have a much better understanding of park factor. Wins Above Replacement (WAR). All that stuff.
What if Bonds only lifted weights?
My understanding is that adding muscle mass helps a batter hit the ball further and increase his chances of hitting home runs (HR).
The basic exercise to accomplish this is weight lifting. Brian Downing did this starting around 1979 and it helped him add muscle mass and increase his HR hitting, although he set no records even though he looked different. No one got mad at him.
Barry Bonds wanted to add muscle mass. Apparently he both lifted weights and took steroids. He looked a lot different and set HR records. Everybody outside San Francisco got mad at him.
Bonds could have added muscle mass the old fashion way as Brian Downing had done. Bonds chose to do it the new way as Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa had done. They made themselves look very different and they set HR records. Most people liked what they were doing at first then got mad at them later.
How much of a difference do the steroids make, especially for a player as great as Bonds already was? Could Bonds have set HR records without the steroids, maybe even without the weight lifting alone?
There must be a practical limit for muscle mass on a human frame. I'm guessing that Babe Ruth, Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Mantle, players like that could not bulk up and hit the ball much further than they already did. I'm guessing that they did not need to lift weights much less take steroids. If you can already hit the ball 480-500 feet, you're already at a practical limit for how far a ball can be hit. But I'm just guessing.
This is not a moral judgement, just a baseball one. Ruth, Foxx and Mantle all abused their bodies with alcohol, which should have decreased their effectiveness over time. Bonds at least abused his body to increase his effectiveness.
So what if Bonds had bulked up simply by lifting weights? Would we be mad at him?
The basic exercise to accomplish this is weight lifting. Brian Downing did this starting around 1979 and it helped him add muscle mass and increase his HR hitting, although he set no records even though he looked different. No one got mad at him.
Barry Bonds wanted to add muscle mass. Apparently he both lifted weights and took steroids. He looked a lot different and set HR records. Everybody outside San Francisco got mad at him.
Bonds could have added muscle mass the old fashion way as Brian Downing had done. Bonds chose to do it the new way as Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa had done. They made themselves look very different and they set HR records. Most people liked what they were doing at first then got mad at them later.
How much of a difference do the steroids make, especially for a player as great as Bonds already was? Could Bonds have set HR records without the steroids, maybe even without the weight lifting alone?
There must be a practical limit for muscle mass on a human frame. I'm guessing that Babe Ruth, Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Mantle, players like that could not bulk up and hit the ball much further than they already did. I'm guessing that they did not need to lift weights much less take steroids. If you can already hit the ball 480-500 feet, you're already at a practical limit for how far a ball can be hit. But I'm just guessing.
This is not a moral judgement, just a baseball one. Ruth, Foxx and Mantle all abused their bodies with alcohol, which should have decreased their effectiveness over time. Bonds at least abused his body to increase his effectiveness.
So what if Bonds had bulked up simply by lifting weights? Would we be mad at him?
Most Home Runs 1971-1973 and 1966-1973.
Hank Aaron aged well.
Aaron has by far the fewest at bats (AB) but the second most home runs (HR) 1971-1973. All five batters are in the National League (NL) so to compare you can just get a ratio between AB and HR. Aaron should lead.
Notice the ages. Aaron is older by six to 14 years.
The Braves moved from Milwaukee to Atlanta in 1966 where Aaron played in a home park more conducive to HR hitting than his previous park. Here are the top HR hitters 1966-1973.
Aaron has by far the most HR but the fourth most AB, exceeded by the two Cubs and one Red Sox. Reggie Jackson had 189 HR and Willie Mays 155 during those seasons. Aaron is at least two years older than any of the ten other batters with at least 200 HR 1966-1973.
Rk | Player | HR ▾ | From | To | Age | G | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | RBI | BB | IBB | SO | HBP | SH | SF | GDP | SB | CS | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS | Pos | Tm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Willie Stargell | 125 | 1971 | 1973 | 31-33 | 427 | 1784 | 1528 | 285 | 452 | 97 | 5 | 356 | 228 | 57 | 412 | 12 | 0 | 16 | 21 | 1 | 1 | .296 | .388 | .611 | .999 | *73 | PIT |
2 | Hank Aaron | 121 | 1971 | 1973 | 37-39 | 388 | 1583 | 1336 | 254 | 399 | 44 | 4 | 291 | 231 | 49 | 164 | 4 | 0 | 11 | 33 | 6 | 2 | .299 | .401 | .609 | 1.010 | 3/97 | ATL |
3 | Bobby Bonds | 98 | 1971 | 1973 | 25-27 | 468 | 2126 | 1888 | 359 | 522 | 95 | 13 | 278 | 209 | 19 | 422 | 14 | 1 | 14 | 31 | 113 | 31 | .276 | .351 | .496 | .847 | *9/8 | SFG |
4 | Lee May | 96 | 1971 | 1973 | 28-30 | 443 | 1839 | 1690 | 237 | 469 | 72 | 8 | 301 | 128 | 24 | 402 | 8 | 0 | 13 | 39 | 7 | 2 | .278 | .329 | .500 | .829 | *3 | CIN-HOU |
5 | Johnny Bench | 92 | 1971 | 1973 | 23-25 | 448 | 1917 | 1657 | 250 | 420 | 58 | 7 | 290 | 232 | 44 | 250 | 2 | 1 | 24 | 60 | 12 | 8 | .253 | .342 | .463 | .805 | *2/9375 | CIN |
Aaron has by far the fewest at bats (AB) but the second most home runs (HR) 1971-1973. All five batters are in the National League (NL) so to compare you can just get a ratio between AB and HR. Aaron should lead.
Notice the ages. Aaron is older by six to 14 years.
The Braves moved from Milwaukee to Atlanta in 1966 where Aaron played in a home park more conducive to HR hitting than his previous park. Here are the top HR hitters 1966-1973.
Rk | Player | HR | From | To | Age | G | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | RBI | BB | IBB | SO | HBP | SH | SF | GDP | SB | CS | BA | OBP | SLG | OPS | Pos | Tm |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Hank Aaron | 315 | 1966 | 1973 | 32-39 | 1158 | 4853 | 4208 | 771 | 1243 | 193 | 16 | 828 | 595 | 140 | 529 | 10 | 0 | 39 | 106 | 90 | 26 | .295 | .381 | .573 | .954 | *93/784 | ATL |
2 | Willie Stargell | 262 | 1966 | 1973 | 26-33 | 1110 | 4488 | 3906 | 639 | 1118 | 209 | 21 | 775 | 495 | 134 | 968 | 38 | 8 | 41 | 76 | 10 | 5 | .286 | .369 | .552 | .920 | *73/9 | PIT |
3 | Harmon Killebrew | 249 | 1966 | 1973 | 30-37 | 1099 | 4557 | 3674 | 579 | 952 | 139 | 11 | 741 | 826 | 113 | 693 | 16 | 0 | 41 | 132 | 12 | 10 | .259 | .394 | .506 | .900 | *35/7D | MIN |
4 | Willie McCovey | 248 | 1966 | 1973 | 28-35 | 1050 | 4197 | 3442 | 565 | 976 | 159 | 21 | 724 | 684 | 183 | 602 | 31 | 2 | 38 | 65 | 10 | 8 | .284 | .403 | .558 | .961 | *3 | SFG |
5 | Dick Allen | 238 | 1966 | 1973 | 24-31 | 1030 | 4329 | 3710 | 666 | 1096 | 185 | 46 | 711 | 577 | 104 | 966 | 10 | 5 | 27 | 89 | 85 | 36 | .295 | .389 | .563 | .952 | 357/468D | PHI-STL-LAD-CHW |
6 | Frank Howard | 238 | 1966 | 1973 | 29-36 | 1122 | 4456 | 3864 | 518 | 1058 | 143 | 15 | 653 | 548 | 105 | 833 | 22 | 0 | 23 | 150 | 5 | 5 | .274 | .365 | .503 | .869 | *73/D9 | WSA-TOT-DET |
7 | Billy Williams | 235 | 1966 | 1973 | 28-35 | 1274 | 5546 | 4946 | 776 | 1469 | 224 | 52 | 798 | 531 | 110 | 491 | 24 | 2 | 43 | 110 | 40 | 19 | .297 | .365 | .506 | .871 | *79/3 | CHC |
8 | Frank Robinson | 228 | 1966 | 1973 | 30-37 | 1077 | 4527 | 3817 | 681 | 1110 | 178 | 19 | 701 | 597 | 72 | 621 | 70 | 2 | 41 | 118 | 38 | 18 | .291 | .393 | .527 | .919 | *97D/3 | BAL-LAD-CAL |
9 | Carl Yastrzemski | 209 | 1966 | 1973 | 26-33 | 1226 | 5236 | 4384 | 731 | 1265 | 223 | 18 | 721 | 801 | 83 | 538 | 14 | 2 | 34 | 106 | 91 | 61 | .289 | .397 | .491 | .888 | *73/58 | BOS |
10 | Lee May | 204 | 1966 | 1973 | 23-30 | 1052 | 4302 | 3974 | 546 | 1094 | 204 | 17 | 652 | 264 | 51 | 863 | 32 | 3 | 29 | 101 | 21 | 23 | .275 | .323 | .489 | .813 | *3/79 | CIN-HOU |
11 | Ron Santo | 200 | 1966 | 1973 | 26-33 | 1228 | 5186 | 4409 | 676 | 1238 | 185 | 31 | 766 | 686 | 57 | 759 | 23 | 7 | 61 | 149 | 17 | 23 | .281 | .376 | .473 | .849 | *5/674 | CHC |
Aaron has by far the most HR but the fourth most AB, exceeded by the two Cubs and one Red Sox. Reggie Jackson had 189 HR and Willie Mays 155 during those seasons. Aaron is at least two years older than any of the ten other batters with at least 200 HR 1966-1973.